“Hillary Clinton has already proven to a generation of women that there are no limits for success. She is driven by her passion for public service and her belief in the enormous potential of our country. Smart, capable and strong in her convictions, Hillary has transcended the dictates of what is thought to be possible for our time.”
Streisand has been active in Democratic politics for more than 40 years, performing at fund-raisers and participating in campaign events. She was a major supporter of President Bill Clinton, Hillary’s husband.
The singer added that she believes Hillary Clinton, a U.S. senator from New York, will prioritize issues of global climate change, universal health care and rebuilding the economy, as well as providing moral leadership.
Clinton, the front-runner in the Democratic race, said she was “honored to have Barbra’s support.”
“Barbra has used her immense talent to be an advocate for truth, justice and fairness,” Clinton said, “and I deeply appreciate her confidence in my candidacy as we work together to change the direction of our nation.”

Before delving into the specific charges offered by Kramer, it is important to note that Senator Clinton has been a great supporter of Israel throughout her career, and is one of Israel’s strongest friends in the US Senate. She led the charge for Red Cross recognition of Magen David Adom and has an impeccable voting record.If Hillary were but a fair weather friend of Israel, as Kramer suggests, she surely would not enjoy the immense popularity she has seen in New York. One simply does not get re-elected in the Empire State with 67% of the vote if there is even a smidgeon of legitimate doubt about one’s support for Israel.

Here is what the Orthodox newspaper, The Jewish Press, which opposed Clinton in 2000, wrote in support of her candidacy for re-election to the Senate in 2006: “As regards Israel, she has become an important supporter of the Jewish state both in public and, perhaps more importantly, behind the scenes. She is held in the highest regard by those who regularly plead Israel’s cause in the halls of government. For those who initially were wary of her positions on Middle East issues – and we include ourselves in that category – Ms. Clinton has proved to be a pleasant and welcome surprise ….”

AS FOR Kramer’s specific arguments, to say he is fishing for a reason to bash Senator Clinton is an understatement. For instance, he takes a paragraph from the Senator’s recent Foreign Affairs article, “Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-First Century” and claims that it is “loaded with allusions and references that the casual reader is likely to miss, but that send a clear signal on the high frequency of the ‘peace process.’ The message is this: a Hillary administration would constantly busy itself with Israeli-Palestinians talks, regardless of their prospects, and would strive to avoid any appearance of partiality – toward Israel.”

Kramer’s assertion is patently absurd, as is apparent to anyone who reads the passage in question. Here is the passage that Kramer suggests is filled with anti-Israeli “signals”: Getting out of Iraq will enable us to play a constructive role in a renewed Middle East peace process that would mean security and normal relations for Israel and the Palestinians. The fundamental elements of a final agreement have been clear since 2000: a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank in return for a declaration that the conflict is over, recognition of Israel’s right to exist, guarantees of Israeli security, diplomatic recognition of Israel, and normalization of its relations with Arab states. US diplomacy is critical in helping to resolve this conflict. In addition to facilitating negotiations, we must engage in regional diplomacy to gain Arab support for a Palestinian leadership that is committed to peace and willing to engage in a dialogue with the Israelis. Whether or not the United States makes progress in helping to broker a final agreement, consistent US involvement can lower the level of violence and restore our credibility in the region.

If this passage were truly objectionable, surely Kramer would say the same about the Bush Administration’s efforts to broker Israeli-Palestinian agreements at Annapolis. And what, Mr. Kramer, are we to think of Condoleezza Rice’s assertion that “We appear to be on course to prepare seriously for continuous ongoing negotiations,” and that “I can really say without fear of contradiction that everybody’s goal is the creation” of a Palestinian state?”

Perhaps the biggest discernable difference in Kramer’s eyes is that Clinton’s comments were made by a Democrat – and political foe – while Rice’s were made by a Republican political ally. Mr. Kramer is a member of Rudy Giuliani’s foreign policy team.

To attempt to demagogue the Israel issue, as Kramer has done in his piece about Senator Clinton, is counterproductive to all of us who care about the future of the US-Israel relationship. This type of tawdry political stunt serves only to cheapen the political discourse. The true best interests of Israel have been, are, and will continue to be best served through a strong, bipartisan consensus.

In the piece U.S. Presidential Hopefuls Running after Jewish Voters appearing on the Right Wing Israeli outlet Arutz Sheva / IsraelNational News and reposted by the ultra right wing group the Zionist Organization of America by Sarah Morrison, acknowleges and points out some interesting things. Most importantly, it breaks down the myths that somehow Clinton might not be as good on Israel and that Bush was supposedly so great.

Democratic candidate Senator Hillary Clinton has, by far, the most experience dealing with the Middle East of all the likely presidential candidates, according to Schenker.
However, history tells us that “a candidate who becomes President changes his policy once in office,” observed Steve Goldberg, a Los Angeles lawyer who serves as the National Vice President of the Zionist Organization of America. “Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were unequivocal in their support of moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem when they were running for President, but neither kept his promise. Pro-Israel advocates in the United States expect that a President will not keep all of his or her promises once elected.”
He pointed out that although “she [Senator Clinton] wants Jerusalem to stay the indivisible capital, there is a prevailing view that she would actively broker an agreement with the Palestinians, even if it included sharing the sovereignty of Jerusalem.”
Senator Clinton “has been very active in Israel for a very long time,” Schenker claimed. “Her time as First Lady [married to former President Bill Clinton] gave her a lot of experience in the Middle East. She has visited there many times and has been active in promoting the peace process, along with her husband. Senator Clinton does the most important thing to help: she promotes the peace process,” he added.
Schenker also revealed that if elected, Senator Clinton plans to appoint a senior ambassador to the Middle East to work specifically on Israeli-Arab peace. He stated that the other Democratic candidates share similar positions on the Middle East, although most of them have not taken specific positions beyond maintaining they are friends of the Jewish state.

An underlying issue of all these acknowlegements is the fact that the focus alluded to is on peace, whereas the current Bush / Rice game is focused specifically on the foremost goal of a Palestinian State, with peace being the afterthought.